I know nothing, but I’m very curious.We are entering the final stretch of 2016.If they exist novelties for this year, I guess will come to light…Though such silence, I do not expect much. We hope surprises!!!

OK. So the thing is that this “radio silence” is probably not reallyThe Ideal Situation™ for the devs either.It wouldn’t surprise me if taktik someday, when writing his memoirs, revealed that he actually wishedthat virtually alluserswould become alpha testers and help the project forward in so many different ways.

You can’t answer this sort of questions on this messageboard. Everyone is going to comment with;

we’re must be happy with the Renoise version we have and don’t complain

cats

that’s about it.

sad but true.

The only reason people say to be happy with the version of Renoise you have, is because it currently works as advertised, and nobody even knows if they are currently working on Renoise at all, they obviously have other jobs/enterprises to earn off, sometimes these have to take priority, if Renoise isn’t doing what you want it to, then it may be time for you to consider investing in other software, unfortunately Renoise can not update as fast as Abletone or Imageline or Steinberg, this is just the economy of scale, those softwares have a lot of active users, renoise may have a lot of forum members, but very few people actually using the software in the grand scale of things, and even less paying for updates (Keep in mind here that paid updates for Renoise are very very rare)

The most unfortunate thing in terms of development, was creating all the scripting add on stuff, then continually changing it so a lot of old developments no longer worked, a hell of a lot of time went in to all that development, for what ? a couple of tools that to be perfectly honest are not actually that useful anyway (No disrespect to their developers, if you need them then they are great) there was a bit of a rush at first by users developing, now it is pretty much dead, and that is a lot of wasted development time to get all that scripting built in.

Take that development time, add a linear arranger, linear audio recording, and yes a piano roll, and bam, you have a huge bunch of interest, because the actual backbone of the software is rock solid.

Scripting activity’s slowed down, but danoise in particular is still putting out some amazing stuff and supporting it. Though I have to agree it’s unfortunate a lot of plugins are effectively dead. I hope they never do audio tracks or a piano roll, instead I hope they innovate further with the tracker format and emphasize immediacy in writing music.

I recently sold a bunch of my old synths and got a bunch of new ones with great sequencers, nothing beats a good hardware sequencer for immediate gratification and getting ideas down fast and working with them… except maybe Renoise’s pattern/phrase editor! Now that I’m accustomed to it I can get things down faster than I ever did in a piano roll (it’s all in the key-commands – right hand on computer keyboard, left hand on synth keyboard).

I’m sick of piano rolls, they can basically eat a dick. It’s been piano rolls since the freakin 90s (yeh I know that’s a bit ironic to say, trackers have been too) and it’s a shit metaphor and I wish developers would have the guts to move beyond it, they need to start dropping the hardware studio metaphor for DAWs in general and embrace the computer for what it is. This is beginning to happen in products directed at electronic music producers, but it’s still not really too exciting or new… just yet, it’s getting there. I can see why guys who want to dick around with recording live drum kits and some idiot singer might want to stick with a hardware studio metaphor in a DAW, but for electronic music – fuck it, let’s head for outer space. And Renoise is one of the projects going there, I think.

I hate when I have to use Reaper’s piano roll. And I left Logic partly because I got sick of basically needing to know how a hardware studio works in order to use a piece of software. It’s not intuitive in the slightest, it’s frankly awful. I feel liberated from it after so many years.

OK, I’ll admit though that it might be nice to have another way to work with rendered audio besides turning it into a sampler instrument. (But that’s what I use Reaper for.) Anyway Renoise remains for me the most interesting software sampler/sequencer going, I hope the devs continue with it and I really hope they don’t waste their time trying to make Renoise more like the tired standards or trying to be everything to everyone.

The only reason people say to be happy with the version of Renoise you have, is because it currently works as advertised, and nobody even knows if they are currently working on Renoise at all, they obviously have other jobs/enterprises to earn off, sometimes these have to take priority, if Renoise isn’t doing what you want it to, then it may be time for you to consider investing in other software, unfortunately Renoise can not update as fast as Abletone or Imageline or Steinberg, this is just the economy of scale, those softwares have a lot of active users, renoise may have a lot of forum members, but very few people actually using the software in the grand scale of things, and even less paying for updates (Keep in mind here that paid updates for Renoise are very very rare)

The most unfortunate thing in terms of development, was creating all the scripting add on stuff, then continually changing it so a lot of old developments no longer worked, a hell of a lot of time went in to all that development, for what ? a couple of tools that to be perfectly honest are not actually that useful anyway (No disrespect to their developers, if you need them then they are great) there was a bit of a rush at first by users developing, now it is pretty much dead, and that is a lot of wasted development time to get all that scripting built in.

Take that development time, add a linear arranger, linear audio recording, and yes a piano roll, and bam, you have a huge bunch of interest, because the actual backbone of the software is rock solid.

The constant backward incompatible API changes are certainly problematic, yes. Most of the nicest tools don’t work anymore (e.g. Pking) unfortunately. I think the scripting had quite some potential, though. Who knows, maybe people get enthusiastic about it again, once LuaJIT will arrive in Renoise…

Thecase forthe blending of trackerismand linear DAW conventionalism isvery much aboutmaking it easier for potential users to get accustomed to tracking. The scenario is quite simple to grasp: a new potential user installs Renoise and starts producing while standing on safe ground and familiar functionality, graphically dragging audio files into a linear arranger type of working space. Then gradually and progressively switching into the tracker view to manipulate the audio alphanumerically on a more detailed level.

Nowthe keyword here is “gradually”. You simply can’t expectpeople without any previous tracker background to install Renoise and then spenda lot of timeaquiring the necessary tracking skillsin order to getanywhere.However, by allowing such users to startusing the softwareand getsome instant gratification,operating within the familiar framework they already know from conventional DAWs,that would graduallypush them towardsexploring thetracker’s powerful audio mangling capabilities and therefore alsobuild up theirnew tracking skills.

So it really boils down to this: Closing the doors to standard conventional features such as audio tracks also means closing the doors to 99.9% of the music production market.For me and many other peoplethat haveused trackers since 1989 and Renoise since 2002, such closed door approach seems to be a very bad idea.We wish to see the tracker way of composing to become more accessable formore people. Having spent some 15+ years on developing a software such as Renoise, that already has most of the DAW stuff in it, why notsimply make the most out of it? At least, why not make iteasier for more people to start using it?

Thecase forthe blending of trackerismand linear DAW conventionalism isvery much aboutmaking it easier for potential users to get accustomed to tracking. The scenario is quite simple to grasp: a new potential user installs Renoise and starts producing while standing on safe ground and familiar functionality, graphically dragging audio files into a linear arranger type of working space. Then gradually and progressively switching into the tracker view to manipulate the audio alphanumerically on a more detailed level.

Nowthe keyword here is “gradually”. You simply can’t expectpeople without any previous tracker background to install Renoise and then spenda lot of timeaquiring the necessary tracking skillsin order to getanywhere.However, by allowing such users to startusing the softwareand getsome instant gratification,operating within the familiar framework they already know from conventional DAWs,that would graduallypush them towardsexploring thetracker’s powerful audio mangling capabilities and therefore alsobuild up theirnew tracking skills.

So it really boils down to this: Closing the doors to standard conventional features such as audio tracks also means closing the doors to 99.9% of the music production market.For me and many other peoplethat haveused trackers since 1989 and Renoise since 2002, such closed door approach seems to be a very bad idea.We wish to see the tracker way of composing to become more accessable formore people. Having spent some 15+ years on developing a software such as Renoise, that already has most of the DAW stuff in it, why notsimply make the most out of it? At least, why not make iteasier for more people to start using it?

I doubt very much the developers care about 99.9% of music production market, when a project is a part time or simply done for the love of it, the developers tend to be more obstinate, everybody knows if they had chosen a different path that they would be up with the major players in the DAW world right now, they didn’t, they wont and Renoise is and always be a hobby project, nothing wrong with that of course

Thecase forthe blending of trackerismand linear DAW conventionalism isvery much aboutmaking it easier for potential users to get accustomed to tracking. The scenario is quite simple to grasp: a new potential user installs Renoise and starts producing while standing on safe ground and familiar functionality, graphically dragging audio files into a linear arranger type of working space. Then gradually and progressively switching into the tracker view to manipulate the audio alphanumerically on a more detailed level.

I doubt very much the developers care about 99.9% of music production market, when a project is a part time or simply done for the love of it, the developers tend to be more obstinate, everybody knows if they had chosen a different path that they would be up with the major players in the DAW world right now, they didn’t, they wont and Renoise is and always be a hobby project, nothing wrong with that of course

Sure. It may be the case that the devs aren’t reallyinterested in having any more Renoise users. Enough is enough! Maybe they’re actuallyeven trying hard to reduce the number of users they already have.Butit seems unlikely. I mean, why create Redux ifthey hadnointerestin entering new markets?

Doesn’t Rewire make this workflow available to them?

It’s certainly theclosest you can get to such workflow,so thanks heavens for full ReWire support since version 2.1. But my main point is thatif new users launch Renoise for the first time and won’t have anything familiar tostart from(and also get someinstant gratification from), they won’t spend the time to learn tracking at all. However, if the same potential user launches Renoise and immediately can arrange audio files in a way he’s used to in all the major DAWs, chances are much higher that he’ll explore and learn the unique tracker sample mangling features and then go further down the road and actually learn tracking.

It’s certainly theclosest you can get to such workflow,so thanks heavens for full ReWire support since version 2.1. But my main point is thatif new users launch Renoise for the first time and won’t have anything familiar tostart from(and also get someinstant gratification from), they won’t spend the time to learn tracking at all. However, if the same potential user launches Renoise and immediately can arrange audio files in a way he’s used to in all the major DAWs, chances are much higher that he’ll explore and learn the unique tracker sample mangling features and then go further down the road and actually learn tracking.

Maybe. Or they’ll just complain that it’s missing a bunch of other DAW-like features, and wonder why all the tracker stuff is in the way.

Rewire and Redux both provide options for meeting DAW users halfway. If they want to do the tracker thing, they will. I don’t see how adding DAW-specific features makes them any more likely to try the tracking side.

Now, what the familiar stuff would be about is an open issue. Doesn’t have to be a linear arranger.Maybe somethingsimilar todblue’s Glitch interface would be better:

…or something similar to theclip launcher pads in Ableton Live and Bitwig Studio:

(BTW. Maybe it’sonly me - but isn’t Renoise and Bitwig Studio quite close in terms of graphics and GUI?)

Again,my point is thatyou create another familiar default layer on top of the tracker/pattern editor that the common man without any previous tracker experience could easily handle and get started with for instant gratification. Then all the tracker/pattern editor/sample sequencing stuff would be more like the under-the-hood, detailed level control of things and therefore not feel intimidating.

But of course all my reasoning here presupposes that the Renoise team and the developers are actually interested in getting positive reviews andfeedback, increased sales, more users, etc. If they are not, then of course there is no point in making it easier for people to like the software.